Skip to main content

About your Search

20121224
20130101
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
cannot conduct effective negotiations with the united states when the foreign policy decisions of the federal governments are undermined by the individual policies of individual states. how do you respond to that? >> well, the federal government does legitimately have a monopoly on foreign relations and we haven't interfered with that, we haven't opened up embassies or consulates we're simply within the wonders in the states of arizona. they're disagreeing-- a foreign country disagrees with our laws on our state for illegal activity that therefore that becomes a matter of international relakeses and a federal court can then invalidate an otherwise invalid state law because a foreign country disagrees with it and if they think we're interfering with foreign relations, that's a very dangerous argument and i think it's important that the courts strike down that kind of argument. >> kelly: couldn't you also go to the argument, well, if you feel that our law is so tough and you have something else this minor aspect of sb-1070 which is what it's known as in arizona, then why do you c
obama's foreign policy is feckless and weak? >> i'm saying, you make your own decision. two years ago the middle east was a stable place, a government that was pro-american. they were not at war with israel. fast forward two years later, we have been very involved in toppling those dictators in the middle east but we have stepped back as those countries struggled to find new governments. they found islamist governments. we did not help them in pro democracy election. whether you talk about libya, vipt or any of the countries they were all a lot worse off than two years ago. i think the secretary of state has a lot to answer for and to explain why. what did do wrong to have the policies that have allowed the united states essentially to be blamed for most of the problems in the middle east today. >> gregg: the benghazi diplomatic mission was going to be a dangerous place. there had been previous attacks in and around it before the september 11th terror attack that killed four individuals. should we ask pretty direct questions about why you weren't protecting those people? >> yeah. what
country as great as it is. that foreign policy record we have is something to be proud of. that is not to say we should be putting boots on the ground or putting our men and women in harm's way but i think we do have an opportunity, or at least, you know, a chance to start to comprise some policies that could help steer syria out of this and also we obviously need to be worrying about iran, its nuclear program and its meddling in the politics and policies of some of our allies in the region. jamie: i'm not exaggerating, but sometimes i lock my door at night i think about iran. it is so scary. if people don't follow it they should. we're a little stretched now in the united states. we have boots on the ground and we have a lot of other things. it is very difficult to get intel on iran. they are surely fueling syria and all the violence that's going on there. even russia has been a bit hands off. what could we do? >> well, you know, first of all, iran's fingerprints are all over syria. i think that is undeniable. they continue to help the syrians crack down on this insurrect
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3